Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18^th September 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18^th September 2019 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:

Item 19/01038/FULD – Land Adjacent to 1A King Street, Mortimer Common, Page 29, final paragraph: To read Councillor Joanne Stewart.

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Graham Pask declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), but reported that, as his interest was a personal or an other registrable interest, but not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Councillor Graham Pask declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been Ward Member for Bradfield and had received emails from people who supported and objected to the application. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 18/02472/FUL in respect of the demolition of existing village hall and garages and construction of new village hall (D1/D2 mixed use) and associated parking and access, removal of existing recreational facilities, creation of new multi-games area, relocation of children's play area, new boundary treatment, landscaping and ancillary works.

Mr Bob Dray, Team Leader – Development Control, introduced the report and highlighted the following points:

·           There had been a total of 107 letters of objection to the application and 82 letters of support.

·           Two previous applications for the site had been refused due to design concerns, loss of open space and the cumulative impact that would have been caused. 

·           One of the previous applications was for four dwellings alongside a replacement hall. These dwellings had been removed from the current proposals.

·           Plans of the site showed the previous scheme in yellow against the current scheme, which had been placed further back into the site.

·           The site would provide a series of benefits including modern replacement facilities.

·           Parking spaces on the site would increase from 26 to 71 if the application was approved.

·           The footway to the front of the site would be increased in width to 1.5 metres.

·           There would be a loss of open space to the rear of the site if the application was approved and this was a key consideration.

·           Sport England had been consulted on the application and paragraph 6.20 onwards of the report detailed a series of negotiations. Sports England had concluded that the scheme was acceptable and now raised no technical objections.

·           The village hall would be built in a Dutch barn style, which had received objections. This style had been chosen because it helped to keep the height of the building down and was considered to suit the rural location. It was acknowledged that some harm would be caused by the substantive building if approved.

·           The application was considered to be on balance as it had benefits and adverse effects.

·           Having taken account of all the relevant planning policy considerations and other material considerations, it was considered that the application complied with the development plan when considered as a whole, and therefore approval of the application was recommended.

·           The Update Report included five further letters of objections and clarified a number of matters that had been raised at the site visit regarding phasing, the construction management plan, storage sheds, building heights, alternative proposals suggested by third parties and existing tennis courts/MUGA.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Andrew House, Parish Council representative, Jonathan Alderman, Giles Allen and Michael  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.(1)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 19/01803/FUL in respect of the demolition of a derelict public house and construction of surface car park, including associated fencing and security control.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and ran through the key points. It was confirmed that approval had been given in principle for the loss of the public house.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Kevin Page, Parish Council representative, Robert Teesdale, agent, Councillor Peter Argyle, Ward Member and Councillor Tony Linden, Adjacent Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Kevin Page in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He was the Chairman of Tilehurst Parish Council. The report provided by the Planning Officer was comprehensive and the Parish Council agreed with the recommendation to refuse planning permission.

·         The proposed car park, which would entail a large area of hard standing was not in keeping with the surrounding residential area. In the view of the Parish Council one blot on the landscape would be replaced with another if the application was approved.

·         The Parish Council had not received enough information about the application however, now that this had been received it still did not fee assured.

·         There was concern that the application would increase traffic in the area particularly on the bend at the bottom of Langley Hill. 

·         If the site became a car park there was concern that there would be re-occurrences of travellers using the site as has occurred in the past. The site was notorious for travellers. There had been a number of traveller incursions on the site, which was why bollards had been placed at the entrance.

·         The access to and from the site was particularly concerning. It had been noted from a letter on the 14th August that security fencing and CCTV was proposed for the site. The Parish Council questioned if this would provide adequate security. The fencing and CCTV facility would also be unsightly in the local area.

·         The Parish Council questioned if there was any need for a car park in the proposed location.

Agent’s Representations:

Mr Teesdale in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         He would manage whatever development went ahead on the site.

·         The site had been labelled a ‘Brexit’ site and any plans for domestic housing were not currently viable. This would however be looked into in the future.

·         The car park would provide a short term business and 24 hour security would be provided on the site. This would include a security person being present on the site 24 hours per day and this was important with regards to comments made about travellers.

·         The applicant was responsible for ensuring no-one was able to enter the site and cause harm to themselves. At the present time the site was often used by people using illegal substances, and needles and faeces had been removed from the vacant building on the site.

·         Regarding the appraisal for the site,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.(2)